The Delhi High Court on Friday, 8 November 2025, dismissed the petition filed by Dr. B.S. Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences, Kanpur, challenging the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) refusal to approve an increase of 100 MBBS seats for the academic year 2025–26.
Justice Vikas Mahajan upheld the Medical Assessment and Rating Board’s (MARB) Letter of Disapproval (LoD) dated 24 September 2025, which had denied the request due to "gross deficiencies" in faculty strength, as reflected in the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) data.
Background
The institute had sought to raise its intake from 150 to 250 MBBS seats, citing an earlier inspection report dated 26 June 2025 that showed only a 2.97% deficiency in teaching faculty. Represented by senior advocate Vikas Singh, the petitioner argued that the inspection had confirmed satisfactory infrastructure, adequate staff, and sufficient hospital load.
However, the NMC later issued a disapproval letter noting that AEBAS data from June to August 2025 showed only 49 faculty members present, amounting to a 70.83% deficiency when measured against the required numbers for 250 seats.
Singh contended that such data was never mentioned in the show cause notices issued earlier and that the LoD was "arbitrary" and contrary to the inspection findings. He also pointed out that the LoD was issued only after the petition had been filed, implying mala fide intent to nullify judicial scrutiny.
The Union of India and NMC, represented by Senior Advocate Kirtiman Singh, opposed the plea, arguing that the entire cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh and hence, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They also asserted that the college had access to an appellate remedy under Section 28 of the NMC Act, which it failed to exercise.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mahajan, after hearing both sides at length, decided to address the matter on merits due to the urgency of the ongoing NEET-UG counselling.
The court noted that the institute had already been granted conditional renewal for 150 seats in July 2025, along with a ₹10 lakh penalty for faculty and clinical deficiencies. The same communication, the court pointed out, had clearly mentioned that 19 out of 20 departments were lacking in faculty according to AEBAS data.
"The petitioner cannot feign ignorance about deficiency in faculty," Justice Mahajan observed. He added that deficiencies had been "repeatedly pointed out" through notices, hearings, and letters, and thus, the institute had adequate opportunity to rectify them.
On the use of AEBAS, the court emphasized that it was a statutory and verifiable compliance mechanism, not a mere formality. "It substitutes physical attendance registers, which are susceptible to manipulation. It provides tamper-proof evidence of actual faculty presence," the bench stated.
Rejecting the argument that physical inspection reports should carry primacy, the court said the AEBAS data for three continuous months was a more reliable indicator of an institution’s actual teaching environment.
Court’s Decision
The bench held that MARB acted well within its statutory powers under Section 28(7) of the NMC Act to evaluate institutions without prior notice, using both physical and digital assessments.
"The AEBAS data from June to August 2025 clearly shows only 49 faculty members, resulting in a 70.83% deficiency — far beyond the permissible relaxation limit of 5%," Justice Mahajan noted, adding that the petitioner had not disputed these figures.
Citing precedents such as Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India, the court reiterated that judicial review cannot function as an appeal over expert assessments made by statutory bodies like the NMC or MARB.
"The High Court is not an appellate authority to re-evaluate the findings of expert assessors," the bench remarked, underscoring that the judiciary must defer to specialized regulatory expertise unless bias or perversity is proven — neither of which was shown in this case.
Concluding firmly, Justice Mahajan stated:
"It would be a travesty of justice to permit repeated opportunities for compliance at the fag end of the counselling process. The deficiencies were neither minor nor temporary."
Accordingly, the writ petition and accompanying applications were dismissed.
Case Title: Dr. B.S. Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) 14821/2025 & CM 62984/2025